Loading ITAT cases…
295 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not empowered to dismiss the appeal in limine without deciding the grounds on merit. The assessee was not provided with a due opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance was not sustainable except for the specific issue of the missing voucher. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the allowability of the Rs. 5,31,271 expense after considering the assessee's submission that the voucher was provided.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions to PF and ESI made after the due date but before the due date for filing the return of income is not sustainable for assessment years prior to 2021-22. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are not applicable retrospectively.
The Tribunal noted that the impugned appeal was listed as pending under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. Therefore, the appeal was treated as infructuous.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, the assessee is at liberty to seek restoration if they fail to avail the VSV Scheme for bonafide reasons.
The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for belated payment of employees' contribution to ESI and PF is debatable and covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 are prospective.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the AO had considered only a portion of the transactions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering all contracts and providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the issue is debatable and covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. The amendments are prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC is deleted.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. The disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI is not warranted if the contributions were remitted before the due date for filing the return of income.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI and PF is debatable at the 143(1) stage. Following jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions, and its own previous rulings, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance as contributions were remitted before the due date for filing the return.
The Tribunal found that the AO's reasons for reopening were faulty and not based on facts, lacking independent application of mind and correlation of information. The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to these defects.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified. Considering the remote location of the business, the nature of the suppliers (petty, illiterate individuals), and the increase in profit margins, the Tribunal found the payments to be genuine and bona fide, aligning with the exceptions to the strict application of Section 40A(3).
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC under Section 143(1) is not warranted as the issue is debatable. It further relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and Supreme Court's decision in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. to hold that the amendments are prospective.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) does not survive. The AO was directed to delete the penalty.
The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted to settle the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that income from the 'Altea system' used at the airport by airlines should not be characterized as 'royalty' under the Act or the Indo-Spain Treaty. It also directed the revenue to not tax royalty in accordance with the High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not address the assessee's plea of double disallowance. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination and decision on whether a double disallowance occurred.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 143(1) for employees' contribution to ESI and PF is debatable. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court decisions, and a previous Tribunal ruling, it was held that amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 are prospective and no disallowance is called for if contributions were remitted before the due date for filing the return.
The Tribunal held that income from the 'Altea system' used at the airport by airlines should not be characterized as 'royalty' under the Act or the Indo-Spain Treaty. It also directed the revenue to not tax royalty in accordance with the High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal held that R&D expenses were revenue in nature as they were based on annual sales and did not create enduring benefits. Bad debts were allowed as they were duly accounted for and provisions were made. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s partial deletion of personal expenses.
The Tribunal held that income from the 'Altea system' used at the airport by airlines should not be characterized as 'royalty' under the Act or the Indo-Spain Treaty. It also directed the revenue to not tax royalty in accordance with the High Court's judgment.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not warranted as the issue was debatable and covered by jurisdictional High Court decisions. The amendments by the Finance Act, 2021 were considered prospective.
The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective. Since the contributions were remitted before the due date for filing the return of income, the disallowance was not warranted.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the revised order passed by the Assessing Officer was no longer a cause of grievance. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that belated payment of employee's contribution to ESI and EPF, if deposited before the due date of filing the Income Tax Return, does not warrant disallowance.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) but acknowledged the right to appeal. It directed the assessee to pay Rs. 10,000 to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and approach the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the quashing of the section 263 order rendered the subsequent assessment orders non-est. Therefore, any additions or disallowances made in those assessment orders were nullified.
The Tribunal held that since the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed by the ITAT, the consequential assessment order passed by the AO would not survive. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal arising from this consequential assessment was infructuous.
The Tribunal held that if a receipt is not in the nature of income, it cannot be included in the book profit for computation under Section 115JB. Since the addition was deleted under normal provisions, the addition under MAT provisions also stands deleted.
The Tribunal held that the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are not applicable to the assessment year in question. Relying on High Court decisions, it was held that the disallowance of late deposited employee contributions was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that no prejudice was caused to the assessee by the revisional order, as the subsequent assessment yielded the same loss. Therefore, the appeal was considered academic and infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the notice issued by the AO did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This followed a Delhi High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that once the quantum appeal is settled under the Vivad Se Viswas Act, the penalty appeal should also be allowed, as per CBDT clarifications. The Revenue can seek restoration if the settlement is set aside.
The Tribunal held that for invoking penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on Explanation 1(B), two conditions must be cumulatively satisfied: the explanation must be unsubstantiated and the assessee must fail to prove it was bona fide and all material facts were disclosed. Since the assessee successfully proved the explanation was bona fide and all facts were disclosed, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance was warranted. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not attracted as there was no malafide intention and the disallowance did not result in any prejudice to the revenue. The adjustment in book profits also did not warrant a penalty. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance was warranted. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and the AO's order to be lacking in consideration of the assessee's claim. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that since the employee contributions were deposited before the filing of the return of income, no disallowance was warranted. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective and not applicable to the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal held that if a receipt is not in the nature of income, it cannot be included in the book profit for computation under Section 115JB. Since the addition was deleted under normal provisions, the addition under MAT provisions also stands deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC and sustained by the NFAC was not warranted. The issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. M/s. Alom Extrusions Limited.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn without any finding on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 68 is applicable only to credits pertaining to the current assessment year. Since the share application money was a carried forward balance, the primary condition for invoking Section 68 was not met. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the CIT(A) had properly examined the issue and allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, citing no change in facts or law.
The Tribunal held that expenses incurred in distributing freebies to medical practitioners are prohibited by law, following the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT. Therefore, such expenditure is not allowable as a deduction.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as it had become infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the donations received from publishers were in the nature of commission for promoting and prescribing books, constituting a commercial activity. This activity was not incidental to the charitable objectives of the society, thus warranting the denial of exemption under Section 11(4A).
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The non-enquiry into Section 56(2)(viia) was not necessary given the limited scrutiny and the nature of the assessee's investments.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's evidence without proper verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.